Universal Healthcare

Over the past couple of months there's been hours of coverage this whole healthcare thing. Whether it's creation of death panels or showing off these crazy shooting people at protests. There was so much coverage with non-sense bias commentary that I stopped watching the news all together both on TV and online. It's was disgusting. There are so many arguments bouncing around that I've come to conclusion that no one actually knows what is going on. It seems to boil down to two viewpoints:

1. It is the responsibility of the government to look out for the common welfare. Wherefore it's citizens should be provide with universal healthcare when they are sick because the cost is greater than one person can afford at one time.

A. Governments are not a safety net but instead a shield. On one hand they can regulate industry in order to prevent future fraud but they should not be used for those who do not take care of themselves.

Both arguments have merit. In the liberal side it is true that most people do not get sick at the same time and therefore if 95% of people are taking care of the sick at any given time than it is easier to afford. It is also very idealistic to believe in helping the common man and treating everyone equal. The conservative side takes a more responsible view in that a proactive person will take care of themselves, given the opportunity, and would be better able to make decisions concerning their own welfare. Not to mention a group of people unaware of an individual's health should not be dictating how they should be cured.

My problem is one falls flat when faced with greed and the falters in the face of sloth. I should not be held responsible for the idiotic decisions of others but at the same time I deserve to have choice in my own life, which includes degrading my body should I choose. Taken to extremes there does not seem to be any answers that would make either side happy. This is taken to extremes because there is money to be made now and it cost to much money to change.

The obvious answer seems to take the same approach with healthcare that we take with car insurance. In order to drive a car on a tax funded road you must have a driver's license AND car insurance. This seems to work remarkably well. Those with money get fantastic coverage while those with little get the bare minimum, but in the end everyone is covered. Exception will always exist for those who believe they can afford to take a chance but they deserve what ever happens, because they are gambling with their lives.

Why not apply the same philosophy to healthcare? Regulate that every working or benefits receiving person must have it but don't offer any choices through the government. That way we as individuals can decide how much money to spend for the coverage we believe is needed. Make it a state mandate to guarantee there is something affordable for those making min wage and then leave it at that.

In the end I don't want to pay for someone else's drug problem but I also don't want to insurance to be the reason I don't receive any procedures. I'm willing to help my fellow man but only as far as they are willing to help me. Charity is a two way street and there is no way I am going to help someone with problems for which they should be solving it on their own.